> Hi, > > Jan Kara wrote: > > Hi, > > > >>I updated my patch and introduction article for it by reflecting > >>the comment of Andrew's. > <SNIP> > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Toshiyuki Okajima <toshi.okajima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I agree with the change. It's true that we can leave some anonymous > >pages behind and it's nicer to the MM to release them earlier when we > >know they will be never needed again. The patch looks fine to me, you > >can add > > Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > Thank you for confirming. Please keep me CCed (use group reply), thanks. I sometimes don't have time for reading mailing lists or just skim through them so I can easily miss replies... > > How much have you stressed the patched kernel? I suggest you use > >fsxlinux and put some memory pressure to the system... > > I have stressed it for 72 or more hours. > Stresser does: > - allocates/frees big memory(1.7GB) which was almost system > memory size(2GB) repeatedly. OK, I suppose you also wrote something to the memory (otherwise it won't be really allocated). > Confirmation of integrity of patched Filesystem(jbd) does: > - creates files, and copies 3 files from created each file > (3 copies run concurrently), and confirms whether there is > no difference between created files and copied files. > (20 processes runs these works concurrently and repeatedly.) > Above 2 jobs run concurrently. This sounds reasonable. fsxlinux does actually something similar but it also stresses mmaped accesses and truncate patch. In this case, what you did should be enough. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SuSE CR Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
